[rescue] Wooohhhooo XP -> 0 to BSOD in 12min23sec

Fri Oct 26 15:29:39 CDT 2001

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C15E5C.EFDB3F90
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

> "Braun, Matthew, CON, OASD(HA)/TMA" <Matthew.Braun at tma.osd.mil> wrote:
> > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does 
> not understand
> > this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
> 
> Then I suggest that *you* get a better mail client. </flame>

What was it you said about getting a system that's locked down tighted than
a duck's areshole? Well, I get Outlook. And that's it. (I say "Send Using
Plain Text" and it thinks "Ok, Multipart/alternative is fine")

> > But the comment about MS products being too "prettyfied" 
> and not "hardcore"
> > (my terms) I agree with; they should take a timeout on 
> building the UI and
> > crud, and make things more stable. But on the flipside, the 
> open software
> > community (well, the Linux/*BSD people) need to hold off on 
> some of the
> > hardcore stuff and add the pretty features
> 
> The pretty features are all there as far as I can tell.  A 
> recent Gnome,
> for instance, doesn't look too bad at all, and neither do 
> apps which use
> Gnome widgets.  X (and Gnome and KDE)'s real problem is:
>   it's a bitch to set up
>   it's a bitch to configure
>   apps use random widget sets

Exactly. Until a de-facto standard emerges for "look-and-feel", there will
be confusion. A person can bounce between Windows or Macs and generally
handle things well. I didn't mean that there aren't good-looking WM's out
there, just that there is no real order (both KDE and Enlightment look nice,
but are totally different).

> The first two are not a problem in a corporate environment.  
> The IT dept
> will set it up and configure it and then lock it down tighter than a
> duck's arsehole so that people can't break it.  Ordinary 
> users shouldn't
> be adding their own apps, skins, themes, whatever under any 
> circumstances,
> regardless of whether you use Unix/X or Windows.  Down that road non-
> supportability lies.

True.

> The third is a bit of a pain, but have you looked at how divergent the
> interfaces for Windows apps are?  Sure they use the same widgets, but
> they use them in subtlely different ways to each other.  And 
> in any case,
> remember that Joe User is not going to be installing their own apps,
> they'll be using the corporate standard apps, which will 
> presumably have
> been selected with care and attention, and on which he will 
> have received
> the necesary training.

Training? While I happily admit I'm a young'un, I have not seen many
companies that train on using computers. Usually, they just make it a resume
requirement and then train on any specialized apps. Now if companies were
more agressive about training employees, then of course that wouldn't be a
problem.

> >                                            The server 
> market seems to
> > be pretty happy with OSS, but a secretary would crap 
> themself if shown a
> > shell prompt and told to get to work. 
> 
> Au contraire.  If the box is set up properly for them, just 
> like it would
> (should?) be with Windows, they will not have any problems. 

But that's assuming that they've been trained. See above.

> At least,
> that is how things appear to be at my employer.  Our 'team 
> assistant' does
> have a Windows box, cos her counterparts in the New Media and 
> Broadcast
> etc divisions do so she needs it, BUT she seems quite content using a
> Solaris box with Openwindows for doing things like shouting 
> at us on our
> talker, booking us into the leave system, doing expenses, and 
> generally
> keeping us in order and making sure we don't forget our own heads.

> > Personally, I think that BeOS (RIP) and OS X are ideal 
> middle grounds. I'd
> > be all over a Mac like a fly on poo except for the fact 
> that I have a large
> > base of PC software and hardware (and DAMMIT, I like more 
> than one mouse
> > button). 
> 
> Three-button mice work just fine in OS X.  If you run X on X, 
> it will do
> what you expect (although the integration between the X and 
> OS X clipboards
> leaves a lot to be desired).

Well, to be specific, I'm looking at a laptop, and that's got one button
only. I also hate touchpads, but that's another matter (trackpoints fer me).

> If you want to use PC software (and I assume you mean Windows 
> software)
> then Softwindows does the trick, I'm told.

True. Though for obvious reasons, I prefer to run things natively. But as
the months pass and my need for a new laptop grows, Macs are looking more
attractive. 

Before this degenerates into an OS war, I just wanted to make the point that
as far as I can see, no OS is supreme; each has something that they can
improve on. 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C15E5C.EFDB3F90
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [rescue] Wooohhhooo XP -> 0 to BSOD in 12min23sec</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

> "Braun, Matthew, CON, OASD(HA)/TMA" =
<Matthew.Braun at tma.osd.mil> wrote:
 > > This message is in MIME format. Since your =
mail reader does 
 > not understand
 > > this format, some or all of this message =
may not be legible.
 > 
 > Then I suggest that *you* get a better mail =
client. </flame>

What was it you said about getting a system that's =
locked down tighted than a duck's areshole? Well, I get Outlook. And =
that's it. (I say "Send Using Plain Text" and it thinks =
"Ok, Multipart/alternative is fine")

> > But the comment about MS products being too =
"prettyfied" 
 > and not "hardcore"
 > > (my terms) I agree with; they should take =
a timeout on 
 > building the UI and
 > > crud, and make things more stable. But on =
the flipside, the 
 > open software
 > > community (well, the Linux/*BSD people) =
need to hold off on 
 > some of the
 > > hardcore stuff and add the pretty =
features
 > 
 > The pretty features are all there as far as I =
can tell.  A 
 > recent Gnome,
 > for instance, doesn't look too bad at all, and =
neither do 
 > apps which use
 > Gnome widgets.  X (and Gnome and KDE)'s =
real problem is:
 >   it's a bitch to set up
 >   it's a bitch to configure
 >   apps use random widget sets

Exactly. Until a de-facto standard emerges for =
"look-and-feel", there will be confusion. A person can bounce =
between Windows or Macs and generally handle things well. I didn't mean =
that there aren't good-looking WM's out there, just that there is no =
real order (both KDE and Enlightment look nice, but are totally =
different).

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> The first two are not a problem in a corporate =
environment.  </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> The IT dept</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> will set it up and configure it and then lock =
it down tighter than a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> duck's arsehole so that people can't break =
it.  Ordinary </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> users shouldn't</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> be adding their own apps, skins, themes, =
whatever under any </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> circumstances,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> regardless of whether you use Unix/X or =
Windows.  Down that road non-</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> supportability lies.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>True.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> The third is a bit of a pain, but have you =
looked at how divergent the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> interfaces for Windows apps are?  Sure =
they use the same widgets, but</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> they use them in subtlely different ways to =
each other.  And </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> in any case,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> remember that Joe User is not going to be =
installing their own apps,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> they'll be using the corporate standard apps, =
which will </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> presumably have</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> been selected with care and attention, and on =
which he will </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> have received</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the necesary training.</FONT>
</P>

Training? While I happily admit I'm a young'un, I =
have not seen many companies that train on using computers. Usually, =
they just make it a resume requirement and then train on any =
specialized apps. Now if companies were more agressive about training =
employees, then of course that wouldn't be a problem.

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> =
>           &n=
bsp;           &n=
bsp;           &n=
bsp;        The server </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> market seems to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > be pretty happy with OSS, but a secretary =
would crap </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> themself if shown a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > shell prompt and told to get to work. =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Au contraire.  If the box is set up =
properly for them, just </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> like it would</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (should?) be with Windows, they will not have =
any problems. </FONT>
</P>

But that's assuming that they've been trained. See =
above.

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> At least,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> that is how things appear to be at my =
employer.  Our 'team </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> assistant' does</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> have a Windows box, cos her counterparts in the =
New Media and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Broadcast</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> etc divisions do so she needs it, BUT she seems =
quite content using a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Solaris box with Openwindows for doing things =
like shouting </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> at us on our</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> talker, booking us into the leave system, doing =
expenses, and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> generally</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> keeping us in order and making sure we don't =
forget our own heads.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

> > Personally, I think that BeOS (RIP) and OS =
X are ideal 
 > middle grounds. I'd
 > > be all over a Mac like a fly on poo except =
for the fact 
 > that I have a large
 > > base of PC software and hardware (and =
DAMMIT, I like more 
 > than one mouse
 > > button). 
 > 
 > Three-button mice work just fine in OS X.  =
If you run X on X, 
 > it will do
 > what you expect (although the integration =
between the X and 
 > OS X clipboards
 > leaves a lot to be desired).

Well, to be specific, I'm looking at a laptop, and =
that's got one button only. I also hate touchpads, but that's another =
matter (trackpoints fer me).

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> If you want to use PC software (and I assume =
you mean Windows </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> software)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> then Softwindows does the trick, I'm =
told.</FONT>
</P>

True. Though for obvious reasons, I prefer to run =
things natively. But as the months pass and my need for a new laptop =
grows, Macs are looking more attractive.

Before this degenerates into an OS war, I just wanted =
to make the point that as far as I can see, no OS is supreme; each has =
something that they can improve on.

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C15E5C.EFDB3F90--